Influence of Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures on The Implementation Of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics Curriculum In Secondary Schools In Kericho County

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention
ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714
www.ijhssi.org Volume 4 Issue 2 ǁ February. 2015 ǁ PP.20-28
www.ijhssi.org 20 | Page
Influence of Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures on
The Implementation Of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics Curriculum
In Secondary Schools In Kericho County
1
Dr.Kirui Kipyegon Kosgei
1
Director and Lecturer Kisii University Eldoret Campus.
1
BSC (Moi university), PGDE (Kenyatta University), MED (University of Eastern Africa Baraton), PHD
Curriculum instruction (Kisii University)
ABSTRACT: Several factors have been highlighted as impediments to effective implementation of Alternative
‘B’ Mathematics curriculum in secondary schools that include; level of involvement of stakeholders and policy
issues. This study however specifically dealt with the Influence of policy and curriculum formulation procedures
on the implementation of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics curriculum in secondary schools with reference to
Kericho County. Leithwood's model of evaluation of curriculum implementation was adopted in this study.
Descriptive survey design was chosen as the study design. A population of 157 principals, 401 teachers of
Mathematics and 20 heads of secondary Mathematics curriculum at KIDC, MoE and KNEC were targeted.
Simple random sampling was employed to select respondents.. Data were collected by use questionnaires and
interview guides. The findings indicate that there is a strong correlation between Policy and Curriculum
Formulation Procedures and acceptability of new curriculum as indicated in the Chi Square test.
KEY WORDS: Policy, Curriculum formulation procedures, Implementation, Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics
I. INTRODUCTION
Background Information : According to Miliband (2004), alternative curriculum seeks to improve the
education achievement of all learners by tackling underachievement of particular groups of learners at risk of
educational failure due to various risk factors such as poor economic background, poor grades, truancy,
disruptive behavior, and suspension (Kliener, Porch & Farris, 2002). Ahuja (2006) suggests that there is need to
develop an official 'Alternate Mathematics Framework' for slows learners. According to Ahuja such a
framework would ensure that these students are taught all the required material in less depth but at a slower pace
by specially trained and competent mathematics teachers within an extended period of time. This curriculum is
therefore, expected to have an effect on how students are to be organized in mathematics classes; the teaching
and learning methods to be used; the extent for which emphasis was to be placed on co-operation learning as
against competition and for the provision that should be made for students from diverse cultural group
(UNESCO,1984). Several countries have since developed several mathematics syllabi or initiated elaborate
support programme for slower mathematics students. For instance, although most states and NCTM curricula in
the U.S.' do not provide any alternative framework for slower mathematics students, many school districts
across the United States are upgrading the quality of the mathematics curriculum by exploring alternatives for
both struggling and high-achieving students (Gamoran, 1997; Ahuja, 2005).
In most of the states, slow mathematics students in the U.S. are often tracked into slower and watered
down mathematics courses where they are generally not taught the required mathematics materials. Australia's,
states such as Queensland., New South Wales and Victoria, mathematics curriculum structure provides students
of different abilities with much choice and flexibility. There are clear pathways identified for students to follow,
with increased in content and difficulty at each of the pathways (Coupland, 2006).In Pakistan secondary
mathematics syllabus is divided into advanced and general mathematics, for the students strong in mathematics
and those experiencing challenges in learning mathematics respectively. The syllabus stipulates the content in
details and examinations are also set according to the each of the syllabus (Halai, 2010; EdQual, 2007). New
Zealand (Steel, 2005) mathematics curricula are structured in such a way that students of different abilities,
aptitudes and varying interests, have an opportunity to choose the type of curriculum to take and even career
path to follow.

Influence of policy and curriculum formulation…
Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) introduced mathematics alternative 'B' syllabus at secondary school
level in January 2009 (KIE, 2010). This was as a result of numerous recommendations made in several KIE
monitoring reports namely: KIE Report No. 53 (1995); KIE Academia Board of 1997 recommendation of 1999,
Report No. 68 [1999] (KIE, 2007) and Non-Formal Education (NFE) Survey Report (2008). The general
observation from these reports was that mathematics curriculum was not sensitive to learners with special needs.
The two main reasons of developing and implementing mathematics alternative B curriculum was to tackle poor
achievement in mathematics and foster positive attitude towards mathematics(KIE,2008). However, although
schools that offer mathematics alternative B subject improved performance marginally, results indicate that
mathematics alternative A subject registered better performance than latter. It is imperative that an assessment
of the implementation process of this subject is carried out with reference to Kericho County.
Statement of the Problem : As much as mathematics alternative B subject being considered as a simpler
version of the two mathematics subject offered in Kenyan secondary schools (Miheso-O'Connor, 2011), the
students examined did improve the performance as it was anticipated (Wachira, 2011). According to (KNEC
statistic, 2011) mathematics alternative A subject performance improved to (23.06 %) from the previous year's
(21.13%). However, few gains were noticeable in the newly introduced mathematics alternative B subject which
was examined for the first time in 2010. Mean score for the mathematics examination was (19.09 (Yo), (3.97 %)
lower than the results of candidates that sat for mathematics alternative A examination. According to Nairobi
province examination office, the mean score for mathematics alternative A and B subjects for the year 2010 and
2011 was 4.113: 3.896 and 4.308:3.896 respectively.
This is a clear indication that other factors other than the curriculum influenced the outcomes.
Altricher (2005) contends that all seriousimprovement programs encounter problems. Therefore, the
assessment of both the learner and the process of implementing change are essential for early and quick
intervention measures to be taken. Since the introduction of mathematics alternative B curriculum in
secondary school in Kenya, no study known to the researcher has been carried out regarding implementation
of mathematics alternative B subject in secondary schools in Kericho County. This study, therefore, sought to
fill this gap.
Objective of the Study
 To establish policy and curriculum formulation procedures that influenced the implementation of
Alternative „B‟ Mathematics curriculum in secondary schools in Kericho County
Hypothesis : Ho:There is no statistically significant relationship between Policy and Curriculum Formulation
Procedures and implementation of Alternative „B‟ Mathematics curriculum in secondary schools in Kericho
County.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Review of theory : Leithwood (1982) model of evaluating curriculum implementation was used in this study.
According to this model, new curriculum implementation is a process of change. In the practical sense, the
inadequate teaching and learning resources for the implementation of the new Mathematics curriculum, means
there is a gap in actual classroom practice. This would be an indication that educators are experiencing
difficulties or have concerns which have adverse effects on the implementation of the innovation.
Policy Formulation Process in Curriculum Development : Generally policy refers to formal decisions made
by governments that have direct influence on operations of a country. This includes educational issues involving
curriculum development. Studies done by Hai (2010) on the process of public policy formulation in Vietnam,
pointed out that policy formulation was a critical phase of the policy process which also was an explicit subject
of policy design. The public policy formulation was part of the pre-decision phase of policy making that entails
crafting of the goals and priorities and options, costs and benefits of each option, externalities of each option.
These decisions are not arrived at in a vacuum. Key stakeholders are carefully and extensively involved. This
idea was supported by Howlett and Ramesh (2003) who postulated that the involvement of businesses and civil
society-consumers, private entrepreneurs, employees and citizens and community groups, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) in designing public policy was critical if the governments were to improve the
transparency, quality and effectiveness of their policies.
In this regard, experts of Mathematics curriculum studies, parents, teachers, principals are key and
pertinent members in curriculum decision making. According to studies done by Thunradee (2010), most policy
design theorists claim that the policy formulation process was the main cause of the policy success or their
failure. This made some curriculum implementation proposals to be effected or shelved. Research done in

America by Nomdo (2005) found that centralized policy formulation and traditional hierarchical authority
compromised monitoring channels which in turn diffused and made curriculum implementation unreliable
hence leaving out or shelving subject key components of the desired curriculum innovation.
This scenario was found to be a similar practice in Africa especially in Nigeria by Adeyemi (2008) who
posited that technical education was spearheaded but the curriculum for technical subjects failed due to poor
coordination and consultation with various stakeholders.
This made the coveted technical education curriculum to be shelved.According to UNESCO (2005) and
Malande, (2005), policy formulation is one of the major problems confronting developing countries in Africa,
south of Sahara. Comments from World Bank (2005) suggested that implementation problem occurs when the
desired result on the target beneficiaries is shelved hence not achieved. Wherever and whenever the basic
critical factors of policy formulation are not dully considered implementing a public policy may be challenge.
UNESCO (2002) identifies that some of these critical factors include proper communications, available
resources, stakeholders‟ participation, dispositions or attitudes and bureaucratic structures.
The work of Otula (2002) contended that these factors operated simultaneously and they interacted
with each other to aid, shelve or hinder policy on curriculum implementation. World Bank (2000) opined that
little attention was being paid to the subject of policy implementation by policy decision-makers while it was
often taken for granted that once a policy was adopted by government, it must be implemented and desired goals
achieved. This was never the case with mathematics curriculum innovations in Kenya as put forward by
Mwangi (2010).Deliberations of UNESCO (2006) observed that, there could be implementation gap as a result
of many factors, which could arise from the policy itself, the policy maker, or the environment in which the
policy had been made. Implementation gap could arise from policy itself when such a policy emanates solely
from government rather than from the target group. By this, it means that planning was top-down, and, by
implication, the target beneficiaries were not allowed to contribute to the formulation of the policies that
affected their lives. Consequently, World Bank (2002) insisted in its annual report that, it should be noted that
for policies to be successful, target groups should be involved whereby policy makers should plan with the
people rather than for the people in meeting their felt needs. Similarly, Makinde (2005) posited that such
participation would give the target group a sense of belonging as well as get them committed to the successful
implementation of the policy. In order to find complete policy ownership for any significant curriculum, World
Bank (2002) advised by giving another case of implementation gap as the failure of the policy makers to take
into consideration the social, political, economic and administrative variables when analyzing for policy
formulation.
In support of this, UNESCO (2006) identified some other problems that affected policy implementation
in developing countries; among them were inadequate definition of goals in the process of policy formulation,
lack of clarity, internal inconsistency, and incompatibility with other policy goals with the result that the
successful implementation of such a policy becomes problematic. When the needs assessment stage is ignored,
Makinde (2005) posits that in some instances, the policy makers assume that they know the needs of the target
groups and therefore see no reason for their participation, which is key and critical. Howlett and Ramesh (2003)
went further to state that over-ambitious policies were frequently beclouded in ideological context that may hide
the actual problems involved in executing them. A good example of an over-ambitious policy was the free
primary education in Kenya. Studies done by Metto (2006) revealed that the rate at which private institutions are
being established and the rate at which they are growing shows that the public has lost confidence in public
schools due to its ineffectiveness. Even many of those who are sometimes considered as illiterates in the society
now prefer to send their children to fee-paying primary schools so that they may perform well in all subjects
including mathematics. According to Handal (2001) when the policy was too lightly defined, teachers would not
have the flexibility to customize the innovation and change it to accumulate their situation including
implementation of the desired mathematics curriculum. Furthermore, when the top is overly vague and general,
teachers are unable to receive sufficient guidance and structure to understand what the change effort is really
about. This was echoed by Hull, (2006) who claimed that problems begin when the detail of how to do it are not
made clear hence brings about the shelving of significant subject innovations including those of mathematics.
Further studies done by Fullan (2001) suggested that unclear and unspecified goals and means could
cause great anxiety and frustration to the teacher who tries to implement an innovation especially mathematical
subjects which students take to help in their future careers. Research done by Adu (2005) opined that, majority
of teachers were never familiar with policies which in many occasions are not clearly defined or disseminated
hence it made it difficult to implement curriculum innovation in subject areas especially in mathematics that
normally have various alternatives. Further studies by Braslausky (2003) commented in agreement that in such

cases, teachers often remained sceptical about policy, and in some cases, they were forced to wait for a clear
direction and in the process, this hindered prompt and timely implementation of innovations which ultimately
ended up in poor academic performance. Ouwuka (2000) concluded that policies were important to success of
curriculum implementations and innovation of projects. In view of the aforementioned, this study examined
government policy formulation procedures and established the policies that were enacted to guide
implementation of the new alternative „B‟ Mathematics Curriculum.
Studies done in Kenya by Sinei (2013) argued that within sub-Saharan countries, little attention paid to
the subject of policy enforcement by policy decision-makers, while they often assumed that once a policy was
adopted by government, it must be implemented and the desired goals achieved. This has not been automatic as
such. It was further noted that, there was a policy failure when there was a sizeable gap between a policy
decision and its enforcement hence the shelving of alternative „B‟ mathematics curriculum. World Bank (2000)
reported that policy implementation was one of the major problem confronting developing countries. In a quick
rejoinder, UNESCO (2008) observed that enforcement gap could be as a result of the policy itself, the policy
makers, or the environment in which the policy was made. This therefore made Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) to
pose a question that, what was the essence of formulating public policies without economic support for their
implementation? Such policies would suffer implementation gap especially where there was need to employ
education staff for the purpose of implementation or acquire equipment for similar action; adequate funding
became very crucial. This could have eventually necessitated the shelving of curriculum innovations.
III. METHODOLOGY
Research Design : Expost-facto design was employed in the study. Expost-facto design according to Mathooko,
Mathooko and Mathooko (2007), explores and clarifies relationship between two or more variables. This design
was found to be most appropriate for this study because both independent and dependent variable could not be
manipulated since they had occurred. In this study the design helped the researcher to establish the relationship
between policy and curriculum formulation procedures and implementation of Alternative B curriculum.
Target Population : The study population was Head teachers and teachers in Kericho Districts.Records held by
TSC (2010), shows that there were about 157 secondary schools with 157 principals and 401 mathematics
teachers which formed the study population with 20 heads of mathematics from KICD, MOE and KNEC.
Sampling Size and Techniques : The sample size constituted 157 Head teachers and 401 science teachers. The
formula used to arrive at the sample size was adopted from Krejcie and Morgan (1970) as cited by Kathuri and
Pals (1993).
S= X2
NP(1-P)
d2
(N-l) + X2
P (1-P)
Where;
S= Required Sample Size.
N=. Number of secondary school teachers in the District (401),
P= Population proportion of individual that yield maximum possible sample size
(Assumed to be 0.5).
d= Degree of accuracy as reflected by amount of error that can be tolerated (taken as 0.5).
X2
=Table value of chi-square for one degree of freedom taken as 3.841 for 0.95.
District schools were the only used to ensure that only schools with comparable academic resources formed the
framework of the study. The total number of secondary schools in the district was 157. From this, 47 schools
were randomly sampled. A list of all schools was used as initial sampling frame. The schools were sub-divided
into sub-groups or strata based on their locality and gender of students. A proportionate number of respondents
were selected from each stratum in order to obtain a sample which could typically reflect the schools‟
characteristics. Teachers‟ sample was obtained using simple random sampling method as recommended by
Muthooko, Muthooko, and Muthooko, (2007). Head teachers were purposively sampled.

Table 1: Sample units of principals and teachers of Mathematics
No. Participants Sub-County School
Type
Target
Population
Sample
size
%
1 Principals Kericho East Boys 8 3 1.9
Girls 9 3 1.9
Mixed 9 3 1.9
Kericho West Boys 8 3 1.9
Girls 10 3 1.9
Mixed 12 4 2.5
Londiani Boys 6 2 1.3
Girls 7 2 1.3
Mixed 10 3 1.9
Kipkelion Boys 7 2 1.3
Girls 6 2 1.3
Mixed 11 4 2.5
Bureti
Sub total
Boys 13 4 2.5
Girls 17 5 3.2
Mixed 24
157
7
47
4.5
30.0
2 Teachers of
Mathematics
Kericho East Boys 24 7 1.7
Girls 20 6 1.5
Mixed 27 8 1.9
Kericho West Boys 18 5 1.2
Girls 25 7 1.7
Mixed 26 8 1.9
Londiani Boys 14 4 0.9
Girls 19 6 1.5
Mixed 24 8 1.9
Kipkelion Boys 18 5 1.2
Girls 14 4 0.9
Mixed 27 8 1.9
Sub-Total
Bureti Boys 33 11 2.7
Girls 44 13 3.2
Mixed 68
401
20
120
4.9
30.0
Source: Field Data,2012
Data Collection Methods : A research permit was sought from the National Council for Science and
Technology (NCST) through the school of education, Kisii University. On obtaining the research permit, the
researcher sought permission from the DEO‟s office to visit schools. Selected schools were thereafter visited by
the researcher after an appointment had been made with the school administration. Questionnaires and the
interview schedules were administered personally by the researcher to the teachers and interviews conducted
with head teachers. Adequate instruction and assurance of confidentiality was provided to all participants.
Thereafter, the questionnaires were collected by the researcher after being filled.
Validity and Reliability of the Instruments : Kothari, (2006) defines content validity as the extent to which a
measuring instrument provides adequate coverage of the topic under study. According to Mugenda and
Mugenda, (2003:99), “content validity of the measuring instrument refers to the accuracy and meaningfulness of
inferences which are based on the research results”. It is the degree to which results obtained from the analysis
of the data actually represent the phenomenon under study. In order to determine the content validity of the

instruments, the researcher discussed the items with colleagues and experts in the department of curriculum and
instructional media who helped to determine the relevance and content validity of the questionnaires developed.
The tools were piloted and the weaknesses found to exist were rectified as well. Reliability is a measure of the
degree to which a research instrument yields consistent results or data after repeated trials, (Mugenda and
Mugenda 2003). For research to be reliable, it must demonstrate that if it is carried out on a similar group of
respondents in a similar contact, then similar results would be found (Cohen et al, 2000). One way to ensure
reliability in qualitative data is by use of measures that have proven themselves in previous research, (Babbie,
1992). Test-retest technique was used during piloting to establish the reliability of the questionnaires and
interview schedules. The responses from the pilot study were compared and found to be reliable.
Data Analysis : Data was analyzed using quantitative techniques. Quantitative data collected was tabulated and
pie charts, bar graphs and frequency tables developed. The frequencies were converted to percentages to
illustrate relative levels of opinions. Qualitative data from the HODs and head teachers‟ interview schedules
were coded and analyzed to establish thematic patterns from which useful conclusions were drawn. The
statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) assisted to analyze the data collected.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures that influenced the Implementation of Alternative ‘B’
Mathematics Curriculum : Objective four stated that policy formulation has been a critical phase of the policy
process. This has been an explicit subject of policy design. The public policy formulation is part of the pre-
decision phase of policy making including crafting the goals and priorities and options, costs and benefits of
each option, externalities of each option where all key stakeholders play participatory roles.
Three main factors that aided in establishing policy and curriculum procedures that influenced the
implementation of the new curriculum innovation were identified. These were level of awareness of teachers
and principals on the policies that were to guide the implementation process, the level of awareness of teachers
and principals on curriculum formulation procedures that were to the implementation process and level of
incorporation of policy concerns by teachers of Mathematics and principals during the policy formulation
process. Teachers of Mathematics were asked to indicate whether they were aware of the policies that were to
guide the implementation of Alternative „B‟ Mathematics curriculum implementation. Majority (110; 98.2%)
indicated that they were not aware of any such policies while only 2 (1.82) said they were aware of such
policies. Principals too were asked to indicate if they were aware of any such policies that were to guide the
implementation of Alternative „B‟ Mathematics curriculum. A negligible proportion of 3.6% (5) of the teachers
indicated that they were aware of such policies while a bigger proportion of the sample of these respondents of
89.4% (107) was of a contrary opinion. A further negligible proportion of 10.6% (5) of the principle indicated
that they were aware of policy guidelines that were to guide the implementation of Alternative „B‟ Mathematics
while a proportion of 89.4% (42) was of a contrary opinion. Besides, only a small proportion of 6.4% (3) were
aware of curriculum formulation procedures that were to inform the implementation of Alternative „B‟
Mathematics curriculum. Majority (93.6%; 44) of these respondents indicated that they were not aware of any
such procedures.Figure1a and 1b summarize these findings.
Figure 1a: Teachers awareness of policy and curriculum formulation
Source: Field data, 2012

Figure 1b: Principals’ awareness of policy and curriculum formulation
Besides, teachers of Mathematics and principals of the sampled schools were asked to indicate whether their
concerns pertaining to implementation of new curriculum innovations were ever incorporated in the curriculum
formulation process of Alternative „B‟ Mathematics curriculum. A proportion of 98.2% (110) of the teachers of
Mathematics indicated that their concerns over curriculum policy formulation process have never been
incorporated in the curriculum development of Mathematics discipline. Only a negligible proportion (1.8%; 2)
was of a contrary opinion. Similarly 87.2% (41) of the principals negated the study. Table 2 summarizes these
findings.
Table 2: Level of incorporation of policy concerns
Level of incorporation Teachers Principals
Yes No Yes No
Curriculum policy formulation process concerns
incorporated
2 (1.8%) 110
(98.2%)
6 (12.8%) 41 (87.2%)
Studies done by Thunradee (2010), support this finding that, most policy design theorists claim that the
incorporation of concerns of policy formulation process is the main cause of the success or failure of the
implementation of a new curriculum innovation. Besides, this finding was further supported by UNESCO
(2005) and World Bank (2000) reports which articulated that policy issues needed to be sufficiently consultative
if the implementation process were to be successful.
During the interview with KICD, MOE and KNEC it came out clearly that they all believed that once a policy
has been made, it becomes automatically implemented, which was not the case for alternative “B” mathematics
curriculum. Further, the same findings indicated that top-down implementation strategy that makes participation
limited was being employed in Kenya during policy enforcement. Research by Sinei (2013) argued in support of
this matter that within sub-Saharan countries little attention is being paid to the subject of policy enforcement by
policy decision makers, while it is often assumed that once a policy adopted by the government, it must be
implemented and desired goals achieved. There is a need therefore to have not only a top-down but bottom-up
policy enforcement strategies for successful implementation of curriculum innovation or else, shelving of
pertinent curriculum cannot be avoided.
Hypothesis Testing
Ho:There is no statistically significant relationship between Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures and
implementation of Alternative „B‟ Mathematics curriculum in secondary schools in Kericho County.

A Chi square correlation analysis was computed to determine the relationship between Policy and Curriculum
Formulation Procedures and implementation of a new curriculum innovation in secondary schools.
The results obtained showed the existence of a positive and significant relationship between the two study
variables. Table 4.7 shows the tabulated results from the computation.
Table 3: Chi square correlation analysis results
Participation in policy formulation
Correlation New Curriculum
Implementation
Correlation coefficient .835**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 161
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The results indicated that, the calculated p-value (0.000) was less than the hypothesised p-value (0.01). Further,
the results confirmed a strong positive correlation for the variables tested at one percentage significance level
whereby participation in policy formulation having a very high score, r =0.835.
The overall implication was that Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures play a significant role in the
implementation of a new curriculum innovation. This factor should therefore be taken into consideration before
the implementation process begins.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Since the study established that there is a strong correlation between Policy and Curriculum
Formulation Procedures and acceptability of new curriculum, it is recommended that the curriculum developers
review their Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures to enable quick adoption of new innovations in
curriculum development.
REFERENCES
[1]. Miliband, D. (2004) .Press Release, 18 March, by the Minister of state forschool standards, United Kingdom.
[2]. Ahuja, P. (2006).World-Class High Quality Mathematics Education for AllK-12 American Students Department of Mathematical
Sciences KentState University.
[3]. Gamoran, A., Porter, A., Smithson, J., and White, P. (1997). Upgrading HighSchool Mathematics for Low-Achieving, Low Income
Youth.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4),325-338.
[4]. Ahuja, P. (2005).World-Class High Quality Mathematics Education for AllK-12 American Students Department of Mathematical
Sciences KentState University.
[5]. Halai, A. (201 0). Gender and Mathematics Education in Pakistan: A situationanalysis. Montana Council of Teachers of
Mathematics and TheMontana Mathematics Enthusiast, ISSN 1551-3440, Vol. 7; no.1, ppA 7- 62 Information Age Publishing Aga
Khan University Institute forEducational Development, Pakistan/Tanzania.
[6]. EdQual, Research Programme Consortium on Implementing Education III Qualityin Low Income Countries (RPCIMEQLIC, 2007).
[7]. Kenya Institute of Education. (2010).Report on Orientation of SecondarySchool Teachers in General Sciences and Alternative
BMathematics curriculum Nairobi: Kenya Institute of Education(KIE).
[8]. Kenya Institute of Education (2007). Kenya Secondary Mathematics Syllabus. Nairobi: Government Printer.
[9]. Miheso-O'Connor, M.K.(2011).The Social Implications of Student Performance inMathematics on the Development of
Mathematics Education in KenyaAJES, Kenyatta University,Nairobi , Kenya.
[10]. Wachira, K (2011) District schools Register Poor Performance in KCSE Exams:The 'Standard Newspaper 04/03/2011.'
[11]. Hai, D. (2010). The Policy process in Vietnam: Critical roles of different actors. SociaPublishing House of Vietnam.
[12]. Howlett and Ramesh (2003).“Studying public policy”.Oxford University Press.
[13]. Nomdo, I. (2005). Collaborative Curriculum Development through Action Research. University of Sussex: Institute of Education.
[14]. Adeyemi, T.O. (2008). Teachers Teaching Experience and Students Learning Outcomes in Secondary Schools in Ondo State.
Nigeria. Med Project, Nigeria: University of Ado-Ekitti Nigeria.
[15]. UNESCO (2002). The Dar Framework for Action. Education for all Meeting our Collecting Commitments. World Education
Forum, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April Paris: UNESCO.
[16]. Otula, P.(2002); Policy Factors Influencing Implementation of Free Primary Education in Kenya; Mphil Thesis: Unpublished
Kenyatta University
[17]. Mwangi, F.A (2010). Factors Contributing to poor Performance of Girls in KCSE Mathematics in Nyeri District. Med. Thesis:
University of Nairobi.
[18]. Makinde, P.N. (2005). Challenges Facing In-Serving Training of Secondary School Mathematics Teachers in Nairobi. Published
Thesis. University of Daresalam.
[19]. Howlett and Ramesh, (2003).“Studying public policy”.Oxford University Press.
[20]. Metto, C.K (2006). Factors Influencing Implementation of Mathematics Curriculum in Baringo District. M. Ed. Thesis: Kenyatta
University.
[21]. Handal, B. (2001). Teachers‟ Mathematical Beliefs and Practices in Teaching and Learning Thematically: The 1996 Standard
Course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sydney.
[22]. Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd
) York, NY: Teachers College Press.
[23]. Adu, P.O. (2005). Influence of Teaching Methods on Students Achievement in Mathematics in Kenya. M.Ed. Thesis. University of
Nairobi.
[24]. Braslausky C. (2003). The Curriculum Geseva: UNESCO IBE.

[25]. Ouwuka, U. (2000). Curriculum Development for African. Publishers Ltd. Second Edition.
[26]. Sinei, J.C. (2013). Factors Influencing Implementation of Curriculum in Kenya: A Case of Music Syllabus in High School. Phd
Thesis: Eldoret-Moi University. Unpublished.
[27]. World Bank (2000). Decentralization of Education-Teacher Management, Washington DC: The World Bank Press.
[28]. UNESCO. (2008). Challenges of Implementing Free Day Secondary Education in Kenya: Experiences from Districts. Nairobi.
UNESCO
[29]. Ornstein A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. (2004). Curriculum Foundations, Principles and Issues. (5th
Edition). Boston. MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
[30]. Krejcie, N. and Morgan, H. (1970). Educational Psychological Measurement London: Addison Wesley Publication Co.
[31]. Mugenda, O.M. And Mugenda AG (2003) Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Acts Press, Nairobi Kenya.
[32]. Thunradee Taveekan, 2010. “Policy Network and Local Governance: Evidences from Thailand”. A paper prepared for the 14th
IRSPM Conference - The Crisis: Challenges for Public Management Berne, Switzerland / 7-9 April 2010 - Panel : New Researchers
Panel (Doctoral Panel).
[33]. Sinei, J.C. (2013). Factors Influencing Implementation of Curriculum in Kenya: A Case of Music Syllabus in High School. Phd
Thesis: Eldoret-Moi University. Unpublished.

Influence of Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures on The Implementation Of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics Curriculum In Secondary Schools In Kericho County

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Influence of Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures on The Implementation Of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics Curriculum In Secondary Schools In Kericho County

Similaire à Influence of Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures on The Implementation Of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics Curriculum In Secondary Schools In Kericho County (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Influence of Policy and Curriculum Formulation Procedures on The Implementation Of Alternative ‘B’ Mathematics Curriculum In Secondary Schools In Kericho County